[Katholish]

Originally Posted by joelsdad

Correct me if I am wriong, but I thought only the Pope (though I am sure acting with the college of Cardinals and the bishoips) could declare ex cathedra teachings. If that is so then since the reformation time there is only 2 ex cathedra revelations or teachings--The Immaculate Conception and the Assumption. There are many other declarative statements made by the church I agree but in all my research none of these (ie Council of Trent) were declared ex cathedra.

Yes, only the Pope, and the bishops in union with him (ie the Magisterium) can make infallible declarations. All infallible declarations are ex cathedra as they all devire their authority from the Seat of Peter. All of the infallible declarations of the Council of Trent (including the declaration on the Canon of Scripture, the declarations on Justification, etc.) the declarations of Vatican I (the Primacy of the Papacy, etc.) and any infallible declaration made by the pope not within the context of a Council are ex cathedra declarations. Just from the 3 that I named and the two that you did, we have five.

Icthus: However, the Catholic Church officially recognizes some people with the title "Saint" because of their

1. Crucial role in the Church, such as St. Paul, evangelist and Apostle, and St. Peter, evangelist and Bishop of Rome.
2. Vibrant Christian faith that the Church feels could be an example of the Gospel that Christians in various walks of life can identify with (like me with Rachel)
3. A combination of these two.

I just wanted to add to that if I might that the key component in the canonization of a saint is the recognition of Heroic Virtue. That is the key term when considering canonization.

Euchre0: i don't see how this comes close to even being remotely relevant to the Chruch's authority.

I believe that you will find that I was quoting from the Book of Titus, not has part of an arguement on Church authority, but simply showing the Biblical origins for the Church's inter-Church disciplary law laid forth in the Lateran Council of 1179. I was merely trying to explain that an excommunication, is a punishment for those who are members of the Catholic Church.

Lateran council of 1179---" We forbid under anathema anyone to have in their home or to favor, or have dealings with the Albigensians, or with their defenders.

Euchre0: So you are saying that Peter (or the current Pope) decides whether someone has lost salvation or not?

I know of no instance in which a pope has ruled that an individual was in Hell and not saved.


PS. Sorry for the multiple posts, but I was away for a long time, and wanted to make sure that I got everything.

[Dr. Doom]

katholish, i am not so sure about that quote in your sig...i mean, NO ONE in the first or second century referred to the early church as the "Catholic Church", with a capital "C." at that time all the word "catholic" meant was the body of Christ.

so, i find it hard to believe that is the proper translation.

[Dr. Doom]

here's is what a scholarly friend of mine wrote to me about this topic and i am just wondering what people think, both Catholic and Protestant:

1st Century – The church had three groups in leadership: apostles, “gifted” men, and officers. Let’s begin with the apostles…We often refer to apostles as the original 12, and these men became men of prestige and authority (You recognize this in the way you refer to Peter especially) even though their authority was never specifically defined, other than as messengers sent into the world as heralds of the Good News. Scripture shows in Acts 1:15-26 that Matthias was chosen to fill the void left by Judas, but we never hear of him again. Paul claimed to be an apostle, though he was not one of the original 12, but because of his conversion, he is seen on an equal plane with the others. Then there are those refered to as apostles, like Barnabus, who was not a successor of the original 12, but still a messanger of the Gospel to those who had never heard. These apostles finally ceased to exist during the first century, but their legacy became more firmly established.
The “gifted” men served the church in a particular way with their gifts, and that made them particularly useful in the early church. Finally, there were those officers…they were called either elder (presbyters) or bishops, and the terms were used interchangably. And second, deacons. These are elaborated on in Paul’s writings.

2nd Century – The “gifted” men gradually disappeared, as recognized servants of the church. Why? because of the false prophet problem the early church was facing, and which Jesus had warned about (Mark 13:5).

Then, a “monarchial” bishop emerged, not something practiced in the 1st century, but practical in dealing with the false teaching problem. This position then had elders serving as his advisors. Ignatius, bishop of Antioch, emphasizes the importance of this position (each congregation had this position), in order to Avoid divisions. This monarchial bishop was the one who proclaimed the word in worship, and presided at the Lord’s Supper. It is important to note that this was an autocratic age, which accepted the principle of authority delegated from higher to lower., molded after the Roman empire.

3rd Century – The Bishop gains more power, now being called the “diocesan” bishop, and now oversaw all the churches in the city, and the surrounding area. They made the elders into what are now know as priests (which is a contradiction to the word presbyters in the Greek), who served the individual congregations. Deacons still dealt with the financial affairs of the church. Bishops were originally ordained by presbyters or elders, but this too changed in coming years, until they were only ordained by bishops. The clerical order had developed.

4th Century – The church modeled itself more like the Roman Empire. This was encouraged by the Emperor, since the power was concentrated into fewer hands, and mre easily controlled. This all happens before any claim is made for the appointment of a pope, mind you. It was done for political and control reasons. “Metropolitan” bishops, or what we now know as “archbishops” appear. They were bishops of the capitol city of each Roman province. The four most important of these were the ones in Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, and Antioch…Note that Jerusalem was not considered important, even though there was a bishop of Jerusalem. This caused the struggle for power (between all the bishops of the major “sees” or seats of office.

5th Century – Here we are in the 5th century, and there is no universal supremecy in the church…until now. Therefore, to state that the order of the RCC comes through apostalic tradition, handed down from the apostles is false. It was ordered as such for political reasons, and then for positions of power. But here, in the 5th Century church, we see one bishop (Innocent I), the bishop of Rome, begin to claim (but not exercise) universal supremecy. It is not known which disciple founded the church in Rome, but it is known that both Paul and Peter visited Rome and then died there.
The RCC claims that Peter was the first bishop of Rome, but that “tradition” did not surface until 185 AD, and according to all the evidence concerning this “tradition” there was not a monarchial bishop in place until late in the second century…long after Peter was dead and gone.


some other random points:
1. Bishop Victor (189) threatened to excommunicate eastern Bishops who did not agree with him, but that angered the Eastern bishops (Polycrates and Irenaeus) and so he reniged on his threat.
2. In the 4th century, the bishop of Rome claimed authority over other bishops, but He was not recognized by all, especially those in northern Africa or northern Italy, or the Germanic parts of the Roman Empire.
3. Innocent I – in the 5th century, claimed universal supremecy, and based his claim on the decision of the first ecumenical council, the Council of Nicea (325 AD), but the decision he quoted was the one approved by the Council of Sardica (which only represented the western bishops). Big Difference…but overlooked by the RCC.
4. Innocent was also the one who asserted that nothing should be decided without the approval of the Roman bishop…not because of tradition passed down, but out of the controvercy between Pelagian and Augustine and the debate on Original Sin. he felt that there needed to be a central decision point, and it should be him! Funny how that worked!

5. It was not until Leo I (440-461) that a “pope” was spoken of commonly. An interesting fact about Leo is that he was the one who made the first claims about the position of Pope, and quoted Jesus and Peter in Matthew 16:18-19. This was not a recognized “tradition” in the church before Leo. Imagine that…an apostalic tradition that was not heard of for 400 years, but then all of a sudden put into practice in only PART of the Roman Empire (the West, not the East).
6. It is also interesting that these claims were accepted but the younger churches in the west, after the ruin of the western Roman empire…but were NEVER accepted by the older churches in the East.

[Ridley's Own]

Originally Posted by Euchre0

1st Century – The church had three groups in leadership: apostles, “gifted” men, and officers. Let’s begin with the apostles…

M'kay...

We often refer to apostles as the original 12, and these men became men of prestige and authority even though their authority was never specifically defined, other than as messengers sent into the world as heralds of the Good News.

That's not true at all (was this written by a Baptist?). The Apostles had specific governing authority at the COuncil of Jerusalem. They were the leaders of the early church and apaprently, had great authority to decide doctrinal issues.

Scripture shows in Acts 1:15-26 that Matthias was chosen to fill the void left by Judas, but we never hear of him again.

Yes. But the gloss here misses an important point; Matthias was elected and received the laying on of hands by the other apostles to receive tha authority of the other apostles.

Paul claimed to be an apostle, though he was not one of the original 12, but because of his conversion, he is seen on an equal plane with the others.

Absolutely not. St. Paul was an apostle because 1. he had encountered the risen Christ and 2. he had received the laying on of hands. NOT because of his conversion. The Apostles were originally suspiscious of Paul.

Finally, there were those officers…they were called either elder (presbyters) or bishops, and the terms were used interchangably. And second, deacons. These are elaborated on in Paul’s writings.

Again, the author glosses over an important facts... That the Apostles were, in fact, acting as Bishops and presbyters (two different greek words that are NOT used interchably) over churches, most notably St. James in Jerusalem and Peter, who refers to himself as a "fellow presbyter" in one of the Peterine epistles.

2nd Century – The “gifted” men gradually disappeared, as recognized servants of the church. Why? because of the false prophet problem the early church was facing, and which Jesus had warned about (Mark 13:5).

No, they disappeared because they all died. But the office of Bishop (filled by the sucessors to the Apostles) lived on.

Then, a “monarchial” bishop emerged, not something practiced in the 1st century,

That's arguable, I think, esp. w/regards to the letters that James and Peter wrote.

This position then had elders serving as his advisors. Ignatius, bishop of Antioch, emphasizes the importance of this position (each congregation had this position), in order to Avoid divisions. This monarchial bishop was the one who proclaimed the word in worship, and presided at the Lord’s Supper.

Indeed.

It is important to note that this was an autocratic age, which accepted the principle of authority delegated from higher to lower., molded after the Roman empire.

Which is hardly relevent to the issue at hand.

3rd Century – The Bishop gains more power, now being called the “diocesan” bishop, and now oversaw all the churches in the city, and the surrounding area.

No; again, I cite James at Jerusalem, the Bishop of the entire city. The idea of dioceses were already established.

They made the elders into what are now know as priests (which is a contradiction to the word presbyters in the Greek), who served the individual congregations.

There is no 'constradiction' there. Sacerdolis (what ENGLISH speakers translate as priest) is the Latin translation for presbyter. There's no real problem here.

Deacons still dealt with the financial affairs of the church. Bishops were originally ordained by presbyters or elders, but this too changed in coming years, until they were only ordained by bishops.

Nonsense. Who ordained Matthias and Paul?

The clerical order had developed.

No, it codified what already existed.

The church modeled itself more like the Roman Empire. This was encouraged by the Emperor, since the power was concentrated into fewer hands, and mre easily controlled.

This smells of the "Constanine Paganized the Church" theory. Constanine called councils, but did not control the church.

This all happens before any claim is made for the appointment of a pope, mind you.

Was there a Bishop of Rome? The Pope is Pope because he is Bishop of Rome, not the other way around. IF the author's purpose is to speak against the episcopacy and the Papacy, he is showing a remarkable lack of knowledge about it.

“Metropolitan” bishops, or what we now know as “archbishops” appear. They were bishops of the capitol city of each Roman province. The four most important of these were the ones in Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, and Antioch…Note that Jerusalem was not considered important, even though there was a bishop of Jerusalem.

That's not true. Jerusalem has always been a Roman Patriarchal See (what the author is referencing).

Here we are in the 5th century, and there is no universal supremecy in the church…until now. Therefore, to state that the order of the RCC comes through apostalic tradition, handed down from the apostles is false.

How is he arriving at that conclusion? None of the history cited remotely supports this.

But here, in the 5th Century church, we see one bishop (Innocent I), the bishop of Rome, begin to claim (but not exercise) universal supremecy.

I think the term is universal primacy, not supremacy. Again, how does the author presume to write against something he doesn't even know anything about?

The RCC claims that Peter was the first bishop of Rome, but that “tradition” did not surface until 185 AD, and according to all the evidence concerning this “tradition” there was not a monarchial bishop in place until late in the second century…long after Peter was dead and gone.

They found his body. He's buried under St. Peter's Basillica in Rome. Peter was the first bishop of Rome, because he was the apostle that lead the church there.

1. Bishop Victor (189) threatened to excommunicate eastern Bishops who did not agree with him, but that angered the Eastern bishops (Polycrates and Irenaeus) and so he reniged on his threat.

And? What was the issue on disagreement? Moreover, local bishops wouldn't have the power to excommunicate other bishops.

2. In the 4th century, the bishop of Rome claimed authority over other bishops, but He was not recognized by all, especially those in northern Africa or northern Italy, or the Germanic parts of the Roman Empire.

Recognized him as what? Universal primacy?

3. Innocent I – in the 5th century, claimed universal supremecy, and based his claim on the decision of the first ecumenical council, the Council of Nicea (325 AD), but the decision he quoted was the one approved by the Council of Sardica (which only represented the western bishops). Big Difference…but overlooked by the RCC.
4. Innocent was also the one who asserted that nothing should be decided without the approval of the Roman bishop…not because of tradition passed down, but out of the controvercy between Pelagian and Augustine and the debate on Original Sin. he felt that there needed to be a central decision point, and it should be him! Funny how that worked!

[/

Since Rome was the capital city of the Empire, why shouldn't it be him?

5. It was not until Leo I (440-461) that a “pope” was spoken of commonly. An interesting fact about Leo is that he was the one who made the first claims about the position of Pope, and quoted Jesus and Peter in Matthew 16:18-19. This was not a recognized “tradition” in the church before Leo. Imagine that…an apostalic tradition that was not heard of for 400 years, but then all of a sudden put into practice in only PART of the Roman Empire (the West, not the East).

Again, the title of Pope is given to the holder of teh See of Rome. One cannot be Bishop of Knoxville and be pope. The author is clearly revealing a serious lack of understanding about the entire issue.

. It is also interesting that these claims were accepted but the younger churches in the west, after the ruin of the western Roman empire…but were NEVER accepted by the older churches in the East.

Why is it interesting? The Great Schism occured because of the filioque clause, not because of papacy.

[Katholish]

Euchre0: katholish, i am not so sure about that quote in your sig...i mean, NO ONE in the first or second century referred to the early church as the "Catholic Church", with a capital "C." at that time all the word "catholic" meant was the body of Christ.

so, i find it hard to believe that is the proper translation.

Actually that was indeed the first historical mention of the Catholic Church proper, it is indeed capitalized, and you can verify this in the translations of Catholics, Orthodox, Anglicans, and Calvanists. (Those are all of the translations that I have seen of it, and I have seen none that have Catholic in the lowercase.) If you wish to look it up for yourself, the quote is from Chapter 8 of St. Ignatius's letter to the Symrnaeans. This quote is recognized as the first time that history records the usage of the "Catholic Church". So yes, clearly at least one person in the Second Century did refer to the Catholic Church in capital terms.

[Katholish]

Euchre0: 1st Century – The church had three groups in leadership: apostles, “gifted” men, and officers. Let’s begin with the apostles…We often refer to apostles as the original 12, and these men became men of prestige and authority (You recognize this in the way you refer to Peter especially) even though their authority was never specifically defined, other than as messengers sent into the world as heralds of the Good News. Scripture shows in Acts 1:15-26 that Matthias was chosen to fill the void left by Judas, but we never hear of him again. Paul claimed to be an apostle, though he was not one of the original 12, but because of his conversion, he is seen on an equal plane with the others. Then there are those refered to as apostles, like Barnabus, who was not a successor of the original 12, but still a messanger of the Gospel to those who had never heard. These apostles finally ceased to exist during the first century, but their legacy became more firmly established.

Firstly, I will object to the phrase "three groups in leadership" for it seems to imply (to me at least) that these groups were almost in competition with each other, and were not part of one organized (though grantedly loosely in the early days) hierarchy.

The leadership of the Church in the First Century was organized as follows, and as it still is today. The Pope, the Vicar of Christ on earth presides over the whole Church in love. The bishops (of who the pope is one) have the authority to ordain fellow bishops, priests, and deacons. The presbyters (or priests, Ridley explained this point well) have the authority to say Mass, hear confession, etc. All bishops are also priests. Next the deacons, which doesn't seem to be a point of contention, so I will let it go.

Basically, any visionary, miracle-worker, or "gifted" one, has no authority, except those who also have been ordained to some office of the Church. This issue was addressed in the Montanist Heresy of the late 2nd Century, where Montanus thought himself not subject to Church authority because he received "direct revelation from the Holy Spirit".

How, has to whether or not Apostolic authority was defined, I agree with Ridley, and say that it most certainly was. This would be what is referred to as Divine Tradition. The Apostles understood the authority that they had to ordain, and also there authority in doctrinal matters as part of the Church's Magisterium.

Matthias, Paul, and Barnabus were ordained by others apostles, whom had the authority to consecrate another to the episcopate. The Apostles did not cease to exist. The original 12 obviously died, but through the sacrament of Holy Orders, the authority of the episcopate was passed on, and the successors to the Apostles still are with us.

Euchre0: The “gifted” men served the church in a particular way with their gifts, and that made them particularly useful in the early church. Finally, there were those officers…they were called either elder (presbyters) or bishops, and the terms were used interchangably. And second, deacons. These are elaborated on in Paul’s writings.

I am certainly not disputing that fact that those people who exercised gifts of the Holy Spirit were greatly useful to the Church, just as long as it is understood that they had no authority over the Church hierarchy. Again, has I mentioned above, and Ridley covered, the office of presbyter and bishop are not used interchangably, but that of presbyter is under the authority of the bishop, successor of the Apostles.

Note: Given the size of your post, I will have to put my response on an installment plan.

[Katholish]

Euchre0: 2nd Century – The “gifted” men gradually disappeared, as recognized servants of the church. Why? because of the false prophet problem the early church was facing, and which Jesus had warned about (Mark 13:5).

I would submit that the relative decline of those people exercising gifts of the Holy Spirit, is not due so much to man-made forces, but seeing has those gifts were from the Holy Spirit, that they were less freely given by the Holy Spirit. Those gifts were seen has extremely useful in the early Church to win converts and establish credibility. In the later years, these outward signs were not as needed, as the Church was already by then firmly established among the population. I would add though, that these gifts have never dried up, nor ceased to exist. Even to this day, these are still apparent. One of the most notable cases of the last century was that of Padre Pio, recently canonized by the Church, who could bi-locate, read souls, heal the infirmed, and bore the visible marks of the crucifixion (the stigmata).

Euchre0: Then, a “monarchial” bishop emerged, not something practiced in the 1st century, but practical in dealing with the false teaching problem. This position then had elders serving as his advisors. Ignatius, bishop of Antioch, emphasizes the importance of this position (each congregation had this position), in order to Avoid divisions. This monarchial bishop was the one who proclaimed the word in worship, and presided at the Lord’s Supper. It is important to note that this was an autocratic age, which accepted the principle of authority delegated from higher to lower., molded after the Roman empire.

What are you attributing to this "monarchial" bishop, that bishops did not do in the first century? If you are referring to bishops being the superiors of the deacons and presbyters, then that was most certainly practiced in the first century, for it was understood that they were the successors of the Apostles, and only they could ordain.

The principle of authority going from "higher to lower" was accepted because it is true, it was not merely because of the age. I would also submit though, that this was an age, not that long after the Roman Republic, and the enemies of autocracy such as Cicero. All authority comes from God, and is given to us on earth, the flow chart of authority does not work in reverse.

Euchre0: 3rd Century – The Bishop gains more power, now being called the “diocesan” bishop, and now oversaw all the churches in the city, and the surrounding area. They made the elders into what are now know as priests (which is a contradiction to the word presbyters in the Greek), who served the individual congregations. Deacons still dealt with the financial affairs of the church. Bishops were originally ordained by presbyters or elders, but this too changed in coming years, until they were only ordained by bishops. The clerical order had developed.

I again agree with Ridley on this point, the concept of a bishop has pastor of a city was of the earliest origin. He brought up the example of James being the bishop of Jerusalem, but you can also see this in numerous other cases, such as St. Peter being the bishop of Antioch, then Rome, St. Polycarp as bishop of Smyrna, and St. Ignatius as bishop of Antioch after St. Peter. All of these examples are taken from the First Century.

Again, there is no conradiction with presbyters and priests, they have always been the same thing.

Bishops were never validly ordained by anyother personage then another bishop. The so-called clerical order had been established from the beginning, ordination being commonly referred to has the laying on of hands (which is still the form that the sacrament takes today).

4th Century – The church modeled itself more like the Roman Empire. This was encouraged by the Emperor, since the power was concentrated into fewer hands, and mre easily controlled. This all happens before any claim is made for the appointment of a pope, mind you. It was done for political and control reasons. “Metropolitan” bishops, or what we now know as “archbishops” appear. They were bishops of the capitol city of each Roman province. The four most important of these were the ones in Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, and Antioch…Note that Jerusalem was not considered important, even though there was a bishop of Jerusalem. This caused the struggle for power (between all the bishops of the major “sees” or seats of office.

Ridley also addressed this point rather well. The pope is the bishop of Rome, the successor of St. Peter. There has been a pope since St. Peter, and there names are even recorded. I could find the whole list for you if you wish, but it begins with St. Peter, St. Linus, St. Cletus, and St. Clement. There is also much implicit and explicit evidence of the Roman pontiff's primacy. This can be seen in St. Ignatius's letter to the Romans, the tone of St. Clement's letter to the Corintians, and the works of St. Irenaeus, just to mention the earliest instances.

I fail to see the point of the comments on Patriarchs, so I shall leave it be.

Euchre0: 5th Century – Here we are in the 5th century, and there is no universal supremecy in the church…until now. Therefore, to state that the order of the RCC comes through apostalic tradition, handed down from the apostles is false. It was ordered as such for political reasons, and then for positions of power. But here, in the 5th Century church, we see one bishop (Innocent I), the bishop of Rome, begin to claim (but not exercise) universal supremecy. It is not known which disciple founded the church in Rome, but it is known that both Paul and Peter visited Rome and then died there.

:knope:
There was indeed universal primacy in the Church in the form of the Bishop of Rome. This primacy existed from the very birth of the Church at Pentecost, and continues to this day. I might be better able to debate this if you had some proof or evidence in support of these positions. If you want some historical evidence that St. Peter was bishop of Rome, I refer you to the work of St. Irenaeus who in the mid 2nd Century compiled a list of the Bishops of Rome.

[Ridley's Own]

Originally Posted by Katholish

I Even to this day, these are still apparent. One of the most notable cases of the last century was that of Padre Pio, recently canonized by the Church, who could bi-locate, read souls, heal the infirmed, and bore the visible marks of the crucifixion (the stigmata).

I'm not sure I'd attribute Padre Pio's gifts as being in the same arena as the apostolic gifts, which is what the original poster was refering.

I again agree with Ridley on this point, the concept of a bishop has pastor of a city was of the earliest origin. He brought up the example of James being the bishop of Jerusalem, but you can also see this in numerous other cases, such as St. Peter being the bishop of Antioch, then Rome, St. Polycarp as bishop of Smyrna, and St. Ignatius as bishop of Antioch after St. Peter. All of these examples are taken from the First Century.

As an aside, I would tend to restrict my examples to Scripture; citing Church history probably won't do you too much good.

There was indeed universal primacy in the Church in the form of the Bishop of Rome. This primacy existed from the very birth of the Church at Pentecost, and continues to this day. I might be better able to debate this if you had some proof or evidence in support of these positions. If you want some historical evidence that St. Peter was bishop of Rome, I refer you to the work of St. Irenaeus who in the mid 2nd Century compiled a list of the Bishops of Rome.

I would argue, incidentally, that the universal primacy rested not in a single bishop, but the bishops in oecumenical council, as is the pattern from Scripture and in the church right up to the Great Schism in 1054.

[Katholish]

Euchre0: 1. Bishop Victor (189) threatened to excommunicate eastern Bishops who did not agree with him, but that angered the Eastern bishops (Polycrates and Irenaeus) and so he reniged on his threat.

I fail to see the point, but on an historical note, are you referring to Irenaeus of Lyon? I ask because of the time frame.

Euchre0: 2. In the 4th century, the bishop of Rome claimed authority over other bishops, but He was not recognized by all, especially those in northern Africa or northern Italy, or the Germanic parts of the Roman Empire.

Do you have any specific examples? As for North Africa, I find that one particularly hard to believe, since it was the Council of Carthage that submitted all of its findings to he Holy See for approval.

Euchre0: 3. Innocent I – in the 5th century, claimed universal supremecy, and based his claim on the decision of the first ecumenical council, the Council of Nicea (325 AD), but the decision he quoted was the one approved by the Council of Sardica (which only represented the western bishops). Big Difference…but overlooked by the RCC.

Do you have the quote of Innocent? I think that would be important for this discussion. I find it hard to believe that the pope would mislabel a quote.

Euchre0: 4. Innocent was also the one who asserted that nothing should be decided without the approval of the Roman bishop…not because of tradition passed down, but out of the controvercy between Pelagian and Augustine and the debate on Original Sin. he felt that there needed to be a central decision point, and it should be him! Funny how that worked!

Again, I am a little confused as to what you are basing this on. Specifically the part where the Innocent supposedly claims that his claim of primacy is not based on Tradition.

Euchre0: 5. It was not until Leo I (440-461) that a “pope” was spoken of commonly. An interesting fact about Leo is that he was the one who made the first claims about the position of Pope, and quoted Jesus and Peter in Matthew 16:18-19. This was not a recognized “tradition” in the church before Leo. Imagine that…an apostalic tradition that was not heard of for 400 years, but then all of a sudden put into practice in only PART of the Roman Empire (the West, not the East).

Actually quite the opposite, the term "pope" (originating from father, or papa) was widely used, but in the early church was also used for all bishops. It was gradually that the term came to be used for just the Bishop of Rome. The title "father" was an extremely common title for the clergy, and is even so today, as Catholic priests most frequently use the title of Father (If I am not mistaken, Anglican priests sometimes do likewise). As for the rest of the quote, I believe that it has already been covered in my other comments.

Euchre0: 6. It is also interesting that these claims were accepted but the younger churches in the west, after the ruin of the western Roman empire…but were NEVER accepted by the older churches in the East.

And your evidence of this is...? Particularly in the Arian Crisis, I think that history adequately shows that the pope was generally recognized even in the East as the ultimate authority in doctrinal issues.